-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 6573)
Message
Captcha
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: 7Z, GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, RAR, SWF, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 551 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here



No. 6573 ID: e8f72b
  http://motherboard.vice.com/read/americas-underdog-fusion-experiment-is-closing-in-on-the-nuclear-future

>An upgrade would boost that to 60 million amps, enough to push the project's fusion scheme well into or at least very close to the realm of commercial viability. A 2012 paper presenting results for simulated Z-Machine fusion conditions at 60 million amps concluded, "For a drive current of 60 MA the simulated gain exceeds 100, which is more than adequate for fusion energy applications."

So close fellas!
Expand all images
>> No. 6577 ID: 604f11
60 million amps.

>MILLION

gawd dayum
>> No. 6588 ID: e8f72b
File 141339961716.jpg - (110.48KB , 636x399 , dwvhkl5krzqzf2he0dfo.jpg )
6588
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/lockheed-martins-new-fusion-reactor-design-can-change-h-1646578094/+barrett?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

More in Fusion news.

>The key to the Skunk Works system is their tube-like design, which allows them to bypass one of the limitations of classic fusion reactor designs, which are very limited in the amount of plasma they can hold, which makes them huge in size—like the gigantic International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. According to McGuire:

>[The traditional tokamak designes] can only hold so much plasma, and we call that the beta limit. [Their plasma ratio is] 5% or so of the confining pressure. [...] We should be able to go to 100% or beyond.

>This architecture allows it to be 10 times smaller at the same power output of something like the ITER, which is expected to generate 500 MW in the 2020s. This is crucial for the use of fusion in all kind of applications, not only in giant, expensive power plants.


>Skunk Works is convinced that their system—which will be the size of a jet engine—will be able to power everything, from spaceships to airplanes to vessels—and of course scale up to a much larger size. At the size of the ITER, it will be able to produce 10 times more energy, McGuire claims:

>It's one of the reasons we think it is feasible for development and future economics. Ten times smaller is the key. But on the physics side, it still has to work, and one of the reasons we think our physics will work is that we've been able to make an inherently stable configuration. In our case, it is always in balance. So if you have less pressure, the plasma will be smaller and will always sit in this magnetic well.
>> No. 6589 ID: 1bcc0d
>>6573
>2 nanoseconds
They need to stop calling this sort of thing a "reactor", so that they stop implying that nanoseconds are long enough to actually gain useful power. 60,000,000 amps delivered in 2 nanoseconds isn't useful, it's a lightning bolt that melts evertything.

Power is useless without control.
>> No. 6590 ID: 604f11
>>6589
Are you a professional wet blanket or do you just do it for fun on the weekends and evenings?
>> No. 6592 ID: b5332d
>>6588
I'm sure they'll just pull those "superconducting magnets" they apparently just have lying around like it isn't no thing out of their ass. As equally sure as I am that they already have figured out a way to not have the magnets and their casings melt into slag when they stick them inside of a 5000C plasma cloud.
>> No. 6593 ID: e9341d
File 141344252281.gif - (88.61KB , 600x450 , 1381711264768.gif )
6593
Daily reminder that Fusion Power is Vaporware.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-bash-lockheed-on-nuclear-fusion-2014-10
>> No. 6594 ID: a9197b
>>6590
These are actually clickbaits and hype. The only real fusion reactors with any hope of succeeding in our lifetime are tokamaks.

What skunkworks and these guys are doing may be the direction of nth generation of nuclear reactors somewhere down the line in the year 2500, or it might fizzle out and fail because the direction of research is a dead end.
>> No. 6595 ID: e8f72b
Well it does state in the article that this design is about 10-15 years off. Still an interesting idea how they are making it small enough to become the size of a jet engine. Still far off and only preliminary designs but still the idea of jet engine sized fusion reactors make my dick very happy.
>> No. 6596 ID: 1bcc0d
>>6590
I'm an aircraft mechanic by trade, and cynic by calling. It's a matter of perspective, really, when it comes to SCIENCE! type things. Don't get me wrong, I love absolutely everything about the concept of nuclear fusion (except the amount of math classes I'd need to get involved), but I'm also aware that there has yet to be a single stable reaction in any of these "reactors".

Stability is the difference between a firecracker and a candle, or to use what may unfortunately be a more apt analogy, clean energy for everyone on the planet and an accidental Tsar Bomba in the middle of a populated area.

So while Lockheed's design might work and might not in the long run for a nuclear fusion reaction, it doesn't really work as a power source for anything if it doesn't have a few key points: A way to ignite the reaction, a way to sustain the reaction (including injecting fuel and extracting waste products), and a way to quench the reaction.

Without those three, all we have is wasted energy. A very bright firecracker, but nothing more than flash and noise.
>> No. 6597 ID: 7fcde8
>>6596

Cynic by calling yet you're joe religion. Have some faith, unbeliever.
>> No. 6598 ID: 988d13
>>6594
Eh, I dont think tokamaks are really all that optimized. Id put my cash on a Stellarator.
>> No. 6599 ID: 1e7cc7
File 141349355917.jpg - (197.49KB , 2000x1000 , nuke Lockheed martin compact fusion reactor 1.jpg )
6599
This New Fusion Reactor Could Save The Planet
The Huffington Post UK Posted: 16/10/2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/16/lockheed-martin-compact-fusion-reactor_n_5995052.html
Lockheed Martin has shocked the world by revealing its very own 'mini' fusion reactor which it claims will provide infinite amounts of energy within just 10 years.

Called the 'Compact Fusion Reactor' the company claims that if it works, it'll be able to create a device the size of a truck that can power an entire town.

Developed by a team at Lockheed Martin's top-secret Skunkworks, the design is that of a bottle shape within which ultra hot plasma is then created and contained using two ring-shaped magnets.

With the plasma safely suspended in the middle the team then claims they can safely harness the energy produced.

This startling claim comes at a time when both the US government and European countries are working to create their own fusion reactors, both of which are massive undertakings, physically and financially.
>> No. 6600 ID: 1e7cc7
File 141349359084.jpg - (704.15KB , 3500x2333 , nuke Lockheed 100-megawatt 'compact fusion re.jpg )
6600
In the US the National Ignition Facility is attempting to create nuclear fusion by using a building-sized laser to kickstart the reaction.

In Europe a group of countries are working on an alternative method called the Tokamak reactor. This creates a ring of ultra-hot plasma, a giant ring of electromagnets then suspend the plasma allowing for a stable reaction.

Both of these techniques, although feasible, are hugely expensive.

Lockheed Martin believes that by starting small they're able to overcome many of the hurdles that these current engineers are facing.

Nuclear fusion is widely regarded as the holy grail for the energy crisis the planet is facing: it's relatively clean and when achieved can produce potentially limitless amounts of power at far greater yields than those found in todays fission reactors.

Scientists are reportedly remaining skeptical about Lockheed's claims however the company is confident that it can have a working prototype within five years and a finished product ready to ship in just ten.

Incredibly Lockheed Martin isn't planning on stopping there either, its secondary motives are that by building something so small they can eventually use it to power jet fighters and even spacecraft allowing man to fly to Mars.
>> No. 6601 ID: 1e7cc7
  Lockheed Martin: Compact Fusion Research & Development
http://youtu.be/UlYClniDFkM
Published on Oct 15, 2014
Learn more: http://lockheedmartin.com/compactfusion

At Lockheed Martin Skunk Works®, we’re making advancements in the development of fusion energy, the ultimate form of renewable power. Our scientists and engineers are looking at the biggest natural fusion reactor for inspiration – the sun. By containing the power of the sun in a small magnetic bottle, we are on the fast track to developing compact fusion reactors to serve the world’s ever-growing energy needs. Learn more about compact fusion: http://lmt.co/1rfsakG
>> No. 6602 ID: 1e7cc7
File 14134955699.jpg - (389.76KB , 1024x683 , nuke Lockheed 100-megawatt 'compact fusion re.jpg )
6602
Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details
Lockheed Martin aims to develop compact reactor prototype in five years, production unit in 10
Oct 15, 2014 Guy Norris | Aviation Week & Space Technology
http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details
>> No. 6603 ID: 1bcc0d
>>6597
Airplanes don't run on faith, dude, they run because of decades of research into applied science, refinement based on what's known to work, and lessons learned from the occasional bloody disaster.

While I have faith that nuclear fusion can be used as a power source, that's hardly the same as thinking that superscience flashbangs can be used to run a generator that'll power the world.

Maybe, instead of being snide and useless, you could point out a flaw in my reasoning. Do you know of something I don't, that shows how a 2-nanosecond burst of energy can be harnessed and dumped into the national power grid?
>> No. 6604 ID: 516ca0
If they get this working they can create a spaceship that uses Cannae drives that can maintain 30gs acceleration. If they only used 1 gs of constant acceleration they could send someone to alpha centauri with a total trip time of 7 years. Assuming that someone could survive moving at 3/5ths the speed of light. It would take roughly 140 earth days to reach that speed. The travelers at most would experience 8 months of travel time...
>> No. 6605 ID: e8f72b
>>6604
Tie that into our latest space hibernation techniques and we could see space travel became a major thing in these up coming 10-20 years. I look forward to living in the age where man finally truly explores space.
>> No. 6609 ID: 42779b
File 141357847240.jpg - (26.14KB , 500x208 , shield-helicarrier-e1337813841918.jpg )
6609
>>6601

> Aircraft that can stay aloft indefinitely.

Soon.
>> No. 6610 ID: 42779b
File 141357870834.jpg - (12.88KB , 220x272 , 220px-HTRE-3.jpg )
6610
>>6600

Boy it would suck to do a "black start" on one of those.
>> No. 6614 ID: 1bcc0d
>>6609
OhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhpleaseOhplease
>> No. 6620 ID: 885afe
>>6603
>Airplanes don't run on faith, dude
IDK bro, have you seen some of the pics of fighters and bombers in ww2 that somehow managed to limp home?

>>6603
>Maybe, instead of being snide and useless, you could point out a flaw in my reasoning
He was just ribbin on ya lightly. Whats with the outburst.

>>6604
Where do I sign up?
>> No. 6622 ID: 1bcc0d
File 141375961277.jpg - (22.18KB , 400x250 , 1985d1299757905t-battle-damaged-17s-b17f-16.jpg )
6622
>>6620
>Whats with the outburst.
I've had a case of the angries lately. Also, the post I was replying to had very little to do, it seemed, with anything thread related, and appeared to be a cheapshot at my faith in God. Which is an entirely different thing than trusting a mechanical object, or believing that the SCIENCE! is as ready as claimed.

As for how this plane kept flying, we could call it a miracle if we so chose, but what we do know is that just because a B-17 can fly and land with this much damage, there's no reason to try to take off in it.
>> No. 6631 ID: 516ca0
>>6620
I may have overestimated relativity. The actual travel time could be shorter but crews time would only change a little.
>> No. 6632 ID: fdef19
>>6603
Dump it into something else, then extract energy from that. Like chemical energy or a fuckhueg carbon heatsink.
Or just make the reactor super small and have its output at like 1 fusion per microsecond with 100 atoms per fusion.
>> No. 6634 ID: 0dcdc8
File 141427970760.jpg - (26.56KB , 300x366 , ba4e3bfd7110214416367ce090105237bd46d5b76a83ca5321.jpg )
6634
>>6573
>60 million amps

Something will explode I guarantee it holding 60 million amps.

Also stepping that down into anything that would not melt down transmission lines....

>Commercially viable
>> No. 6635 ID: 604f11
>>6634
Solution = Bigger Lines -> Smaller Lines.
>> No. 6636 ID: 72880a
Remember that with fusion, "net gain" does not mean useful electricity right off the bat.

"Breaking 100" only means you get more energy out of the reaction than you put into it. More ENERGY - meaning heat, light, free electrons, etc.

The next big fusion hurdle will be finding a way to convert the extra energy into useful electricity via a system. Remember that most ways of converting heat etc. to electricity are piss poor inefficient in the grand scheme of things.

The only real breakthrough here is that the fusion reactor could sustain itself without needing more energy put in from the outside.
>> No. 6704 ID: a5ecdf
  >>6609
Already been done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

And if you want a helicarrier, you damn well better turn your SCIENCE! up to 11. Video related (WARNING: Maths ahead).
>> No. 6705 ID: 51a4de
>>6704
Eh, carriers arent made to be light. Im sure they can use aluminum and use about half of it too. Im fairy sure they're actually a lot heavier than necessary for structural integrity because of armor. Supersonic helicopter blades exist, so we can double the speed and at this point we might as well add some more rotors.

Only question is, how are we going to power the thing?
>> No. 6709 ID: 5edda4
File 141600811453.jpg - (16.89KB , 399x299 , 1159513-459124_dr_manhattan_pic.jpg )
6709
>>6705
>> No. 6717 ID: 1bcc0d
>>6705
Nevermind that the Helicarrier's running what are basically turbofans, not rotors. There's a bit of an efficiency boost since there's no aerodynamic "spill" over the end of the rotor blade, it's al kept inside the duct.

I'm not saying it's entirely plausible, but it's not nearly as impossible as lifting a Nimitz-class carrier with four Blackhawk rotors.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason